1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to the trapping of a multiplicity of live mice.
2. Description of Prior Art
Catching rodents in considerable quantities, without the necessity of recharging bait, resetting traps, or handling rodents has been the focus of much of the prior art. A successful mouse trapping program requires that a trap be simple, reliable, safe, selective, easy to clean, inexpensive, and capable of catching a multiplicity of mice over extended periods.
With the introduction of modern anticoagulant poisons, rodent plagues are nearly a thing of the past. Poisons, however, do not descriminate between species, so their use often conflicts with recently introduced state and federal law. The passage of the endangered species act requires control efforts to be more species specific. The introduction of state "integrated pest management policies" necessitate the use of mechanical, non-poisonous means to control rodents.
Two mechanical, multiple catch traps currently available are the Kness "ketch-all" (U.S. Pat. No. 2,433,913), and the Victor "tin-cat" (no patent). Significant differences in construction and operation prohibit lengthy comparisons between these models and the present invention. However, a great many lessons were learned that can be applied to an analysis of the prior art. None of the relevant prior art is currently in production.
Several types of multiple catch mouse traps have been proposed--for example, the following U.S. patents: U.S. Pat. No. 956, 38 to McAleer (1910), U.S. Pat. No. 1,040,329 to Holt (1912), U.S. Pat. No. 1,163,071 to Drum (1915), U.S. Pat. No. 1,168,252 to Erdley (1916), U.S. Pat. No. 1,618,513 to Coghill (1927), U.S. Pat. No. 1,667,048 to Rawlings (1928), U.S. Pat. No. 1,716,196 to Swanson (1929), U.S. Pat. No. 2,126,512 to Stemen (1938), U.S. Pat. No. 2,162,623 to Livingston (1939), U.S. Pat. No. 3,872,619 to McIlwain (1975) and U.S. Pat. No. 4,214,399 to Bradley (1980).
Though the preceeding patents have contributed significantly to the developement of multiple catch mouse traps, they nevertheless, suffer from a number of disadvantages:
(a) With the exception of Coghill (1927) who uses mason jars, and Bradley (1980) who uses fifty-five gallon oil drums, the prior art necessitates the manufacture of a container to house the captured mice. The present invention uses standard, commercially available containers, such as five gallon plastic buckets and lids, or the like.
(b) None of the aforementioned patents employ more than one kind of entrance aperture emptying directly into the main trap body. The simple, open apertures disclosed by Holt (1912), Drum (1915), Erdley (1916), Swanson (1929), Stemen (1938), and McIlwain (1975), have no additional entrance apertures with one-way passage devices, should an investigating mouse not be inclined to jump into their traps.
(c) none of the aforementioned patents are provided with reduction rings to quickly increase or decrease the inside diameter of the entrance apertures. The present invention enables the operator to include or exclude various rodent species, providing for a selective catch.
(d) With the exception of McAleer (1910), Drum (1915), and Rawlings (1928), baiting is limited to the main trap body. No additional baiters are provided near, around, or within the entrance apertures. The present invention includes an additional baiter within the entrance aperture proper.
(e) None of the aforementioned patents are as quickly and easily inspected, baited or cleaned as the present invention. The importance of servicing multiple catch traps quickly cannot be overstated. Often, the decision to use poisons is based on expediency alone.
(f) Holt (1912), Coghill (1927), Livingston (1939), and Bradley (1980), disclose one-way passage devices that are assessible to trapped rodents. The accessibility of one-way passage devices to trapped rodents creates opportunity for the devices to be manipulated by live rodents, or obstructed by dead and dying rodents, particularly if they become impailed on prongs. The present invention widely separates the trapped rodents from the entrance apertures.
(g) McAleer (1910), Coghill (1927), Rawlings (1928), Swanson (1929), Livingston (1939), and Bradley (1980), disclose entrance apertures provided with sharpened prongs that may be a hazard to children and pets. The prongs are intended to discourage or injure mice attempting to escape. In addition, the baited prongs described by Swanson (1929), are exposed, so that the bait would be easily removed by larger non-target species.
The present invention does not possess sharpened prongs, thus captured mice are not injured before being live released.
(h) Holt (1912), and Coghill (1927), fail to recognize that due to the proximity of captured mice to the one-way passage devices, as additional mice enter, the captured mice may escape. This is likely, since mice travel in family groups. Mother and juveniles are often trapped together.
(i) Bradley (1980), discloses an elbow shaped tubular entrance aperature terminating in a series of sharpened prongs. Each prong is guided by a single guide slot that allows unrestricted upward motion, and thus, the passage of a rodent into the main body of the trap. Exit is not possible, since an attempt to do so would result in being impailed on the prongs.
Two shortcomings of this arrangement are: (1) The guide slots guide only the heads and necks of the prongs. This creates noticeable side swing at the foot end of the prongs. (2) The guide slots do not limit the upward motion of the prongs. This arrangement may lead to manipulation by mice from above and behind the prongs.
(j) McIlwain (1975), discloses a trap system that includes a first container inside a second container. This trap, however, must be buried in the ground., The extra effort of installing this apparatus dramatically increases cost and consequently reduces its efficiency.
(h) The trap described by Stemen (1938), is poorly ventilated.